The purpose of Geogiou and Burnham going aboard the Klingon ship was get T'Kuvma alive to gain leverage against the Klingons to stop this war from breaking out for real. What a stupid plan that was.
The age of the antihero
- Thread starter Refuge
- Start date
The purpose of Geogiou and Burnham going aboard the Klingon ship was get T'Kuvma alive to gain leverage against the Klingons to stop this war from breaking out for real. What a stupid plan that was.
@RedDwarf: I didn't say that Han Solo was not an anti-hero, I said he was a lame example of one. That's especially so under the revisions to the Greedo scene. Now, if we're talking the version of Han who, when we first meet him, just shoots Greedo from under the table before Greedo even gets a shot off, that's more like it. But by the time ROTJ rolls around, Han is no longer an anti-hero at all; he's full blown heroic.
To clarify, under the original version of the original trilogy, Han has an arc that starts out unambiguously in anti-hero territory. But his love for Leia and admiration of Luke reform his character and draw him to become unambiguously heroic. That transition begins in SW77 and is pretty much complete by the time he is frozen in TESB.
My point is that you don't have the best example of an anti-hero, if the supposed anti-hero spends the whole story evolving into an unqualified hero. That's what Han does in the OT.
As for Han in TFA, note that both Han and Luke have split in the wake of Ben Solo's treachery. Assuming that Luke is still the hero and supposing that Han is the anti-hero, they both reacted similarly, so you can't really chalk Han's vanishing up to his returning to his pre-SW77/ANH anti-hero ways. Granted he returns to smuggling, but he's even lost the Millennium Falcon. The cause of all of this was not itself a resurgence of the anti-hero in him but rather that Han had to face a crisis of character in what his son did, but he lacked the tools to cope with that crisis effectively. The same thing happened to Luke in reaction to what Ben Solo did: Luke had a crisis of character in reaction to it. But Luke had a different toolkit, and, based on the trailer dialog for TLJ, unlike Han, Luke's reaction to that crisis has been something else besides merely existing and moping around. In short, Han is no longer the anti-hero in TFA either. He's a broken man.
To clarify, under the original version of the original trilogy, Han has an arc that starts out unambiguously in anti-hero territory. But his love for Leia and admiration of Luke reform his character and draw him to become unambiguously heroic. That transition begins in SW77 and is pretty much complete by the time he is frozen in TESB.
My point is that you don't have the best example of an anti-hero, if the supposed anti-hero spends the whole story evolving into an unqualified hero. That's what Han does in the OT.
As for Han in TFA, note that both Han and Luke have split in the wake of Ben Solo's treachery. Assuming that Luke is still the hero and supposing that Han is the anti-hero, they both reacted similarly, so you can't really chalk Han's vanishing up to his returning to his pre-SW77/ANH anti-hero ways. Granted he returns to smuggling, but he's even lost the Millennium Falcon. The cause of all of this was not itself a resurgence of the anti-hero in him but rather that Han had to face a crisis of character in what his son did, but he lacked the tools to cope with that crisis effectively. The same thing happened to Luke in reaction to what Ben Solo did: Luke had a crisis of character in reaction to it. But Luke had a different toolkit, and, based on the trailer dialog for TLJ, unlike Han, Luke's reaction to that crisis has been something else besides merely existing and moping around. In short, Han is no longer the anti-hero in TFA either. He's a broken man.
It was an admirable plan, but it didn't work out. That doesn't make Burnham a cold-blooded murderer, or even a hot-blooded one. The war had well an truly "broken out for real" by that point. This was after the huge space battle! You know, the one the episode was named after?
The plan didn't work because Burnham killed T'Kuvma. You are right, the plan would never have worked as the war was well on it's way to become hot. It was a stupid plan.
Another thing that was stupid about it was that the critical mission party consisted of only the top two officers on the Shenzhou. Were there no copper shirts available?
Do you even Star Trek?
So, like Kirk?
Oh You... Kirk wasn't there!
Kirk did the same things as Burnham, if not worse.
Where is his condemnation? You know, for science.
I don't know where the condemnation is, do you mean from me specifically because comparing other Trek with the situation at hand is awfully like a smokescreen. It doesn't change what Burnham or Georgiou did or did not do, it might draw attention the writers using the same bag of tricks but it still stands that Burnham set her phaser to kill. That her and Georgiou tried to capture the enemy and failed.
Yes, but Kirk is a hero and Burnham is an anti-hero?
In my opinion? Burnham is no where near being in the same league as Kirk. I have zero problem saying that. Do you think Burnham is a hero?
By why does this make you not like Burnham? You seem to think she is a bad person or something. Is that not the case?
But, Kirk committed worse crimes? Why is he more heroic?
I think she is "a protagonist character, even though flawed, striving toward heroic behavior," to paraphrase your OP.
Hey you keep asking questions and expecting answers which I give, but you won't answer any questions I ask you. That is your right
I judge Kirk by the entirety of what I've seen and Burnham the same. He is essentially, again in my opinion, a good man. A good captain.
You invite comparison when you say that this is the 'age of the antihero' in Star Trek. The implication being that it wasn't before. So naturally, many have pointed out that Star Trek characters, including captains, have committed war crimes and other unsavoury acts in the previous shows and these are either worse than or on a par with anything Burnham or Lorca has done. Your continued insistence that Discovery is full of irredeemable characters while your personal favourite Trek show is half full of actual terrorists reads strongly like confirmation bias.
I think she is too flawed. She is a mess. Not everyone has it in them to be heroic.
